1.5gen

1.5gen - c ' 3 < i >. a 2 a 5 L A Paragon of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: c ' 3 < i >. a 2 a 5 L A Paragon of KoreanaAmetican Pluralism By Won Moo Hurh everal years ago, the new term ilchomose (lit. “1.5 generation”) emerged in the Korean community in the United State's and has increasingly come tolbe used in the Korean American mass media as well. This term was created to refer to Korean immigrants who accompanied their parents to the United States while they were very young and who are hence functionally bilingual. Since these children were born in Korea, they are formally first generation immigrants like their parents. But because of their young age at immigration they ciln be differentiated both from their parents (first generation) and their own offspring (second generation)—hence their designation as a “l.5 generation." Biologically, the notion of a “1.5” generation is of course absurd. But the sociocultural characteristics and psychological experiences of the preadult immigrant are so distinct from either the first or second generation ethnic American that they are worthy of analysis. In this article I wish to explore several relevant questions raised by this unique generation of immigrants. > :r= ixi' - ‘E'i\!\l1'."": 21 93y What is a “1.5 Generation”? _ Since the term “1.5 generation" has only recently been coined in the Korean immigrant community, one cannot turn to a dictionary or the literature on immigration {or its definition. Although the Japanese terms for first. second. and third generation immigrants—15561, nisei. and samei—are found in Webster's Dictionary. no such term as 1.5 generation has ever been used with reference to other immigrant groups. What are the distinctive features of this 1.5 generation of Korean immigrants? As I mentioned earlier, a young age at immigration appears to be one of the most important elements of the 22 KOREAN CULTURE - SPRING iwc 1.5 generation. But how young—infants, children. or adolescents? 1n addition to age, bilingualism seems to be another important element for conceptualizing the 1.5 generation. According to linguist Seok Choong Song, “Korean children :born in this country or those lucky enough to arrive here before the age of puberty will. under normal conditions. become fluent speakers of unaccented English."1 This means that the younger the age at immigration (especially before puberty). the higher the level of the immigrants proficiency in English. On the other hand, however. immigration at an early age is disadvantageous to retaining a high level of Korean t/J( language proficiency. Song again observes correctly: "To the extent that children grow more proficient in English. what meager knowledge of Korean they have had will become less functional and eventually be reduced to a passive ability to comprehend." In order to retain functional bilingualism, therefore. the optimal age at immigration appears generally to be between early and middle adolescence. This period in life marks not only a transition in the person’s ability to acquire language (faculté de langue). but also many other crucial developmental tasks. including the psychosocial. cognitive. and moral. These developmental Pholo by Mail. Shanna —.——_' Anxious Korean—American contestants participating in the 1982 Los Angeles Kmeatown "Stmthem California Junior Miss Beaut)‘ Contest." tasks are. however. functionally interlinked. For example. the life course of an eleven year’ old Korean immigrant in the United States begins with rapid assimilation of English. leading in turh to other areas of sociocultural assimilation. including the acquisition of American peers. social norms. and cultural values. But because of the young immigrant’s lbilingualism and bicultural socialization, he or slpe may eventually face critical psychosocial ambivalence. For some. such ambivalence may turn out to be an opportunity to become cosmopolitan. taking advantage of the best in both Korean and American cultures. For others, however, it may lead to an existential limbo, in which one perceives a marginal self—identity for oneself. lWe will discuss this marginality in more detail later. For ntliw. let it suffice to say that the 1.5 generation can be provisionally defined as bilingual and bicultural Korean Aniericans who immigrated to the United States in early or middle adolescence (generally between the ages of eleven and sixteen). Sociocultural Context Admittedly. manv- adolescents have arrived on American shores from all over the world since immigration to this country began. They too have eventually become bilingual and bicultural. Why. then. did the phenomenon of a “1.5 generation" emerge in the Korean immigrant comr'nunity and not elsewhere? it Since one of the most characteristic aspects of the 1.5 generation is adolescence immigration. to answer this question we should first compare the number of such immigrants from Korea with those from other countries. using as our basis Ihformation derived from US. Department of Justice publications.‘ figures show that the proportion of adolescents (people under age 20) among Korean immigrants has consistently been the highest among all Asian immigrant groups since l97l. averaging about 37.9%. Data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service shows a higher percentage of Korean immigrants in the age group between ten and nineteen than in any other Asian community: 14.8% of the Korean immigrahts who arrived in 1980-81. for example. were betweei: the ages of ten and nineteen. as compared to 6.2% oiV'Japanese. 14.3% of Chinese. and 14.5% ofFilipinos. Except for the Japanese. these Kdl§l-\\'ii|Tl'\'l cei‘ii \\ E‘I'v.‘ 23 936 KOREAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TFE ‘ 5 GENERAHON" differences are, however, minimal and, moreover. other countries have sent even higher proportions of pre'adult immigrants than Korea, such as countries in the Caribbean and Central America. These data suggest that a relatively high proportion of adolescent immigration may be a necessary factor, but not a sufficient condition, to produce the 1.5 generation phenomenon. Other factors besides adolescent immigrant must be contributing to this phenomenon. Sockwconmmk:0mnen As mentioned earlier, two other constituents of the 1.5 generation are bilingualism and biculturalism. The attainment of functional bilingualism and biculturalism is not. however, an easy task for any generation. For the Korean 1.5 generation. it involves essentially four dimensions of socializa- tion: two enculturation The L5 generation can . . . processes (acquismon of be proViSiDnally Korean language and I _ cultural values). which as and have mostly taken place Korean -Amen'cans who in Korea prior to immigra— tion; and two accultura— immigrated to the United States in eaity or middle adolescence. tion processes (achisition of English language and American cultural val- ues). which have mostly 24 KOREAN CULTURE 0 Sf‘th't‘. i09t‘ taken place in the United States after immigration. In other words. the 1.5 generation must have been somalized in both Korea and America to be functional in both soCieties. Undoubtedly‘,ithe “success” of such a complex process of socialuatinn depends on many variables. Although no empirical data are available on the 1.5 generation of Koreans. the sociological literature has richly documented a major variable that exerts a powerful influence on language, intellectual, and emotional development: the socioeconomic background of a child's parents and, especially, lit the father.‘ If this same principle applies to Korean families, we might hypothesize that the 1.5 generation emerges also because of the relatively high socioeconomic status of first generation Koreans, especially those who immigrated lto the United States during the |970s. Highly Educated Studies on immigration have conSistently revealed that Koreans are one of the most highly educated groups in the history of American Ilrrimigration.S The majority are college educated people, who held white-collar jobs prior to their emigration front largely urban areas of Korea. And many of them immigrated to the US. with their families, especially with younger children. This pattern of urban, middle'class, family imimigration contrasts sharply with earlier male—laborer migration from rural areas of Korea in 1903—1905. It differs also from the Latin American pattern of rural, lowervclass, family immigration. For example, in the 1974 fiscal year, Korean and Mexican immigrants were both accompanied by a large proportion of children (those under 20 constituted 49.2% and 39.6%, respectively, of both groups). However, the socioeconomic backgrounds of the two immigrant groups were strikingly different. About 10.8% of Korean immigrants were engaged in professional and technical occupations in their home country, while only 0.7% of Mexican immigrants were similarly employed. The socioeconomic backgrounds of immigrants from other Latin American countries have been similarly low (roughly 36% were iprofessionals).° We might now tentatively conclude that a combination of the following factors led to the emergence of a 1.5 generation in the Korean ethnic community: first. a large proportion of adolescent Korean immigrants; second. the high socioeconomic background of the parents; and third, their consequent attainment of functional bilingualism and biculturalism. But Why then do other Asian immigrant 9.??— communities. which share the first and second factors in common with the Korean immigrants, not also attain function biculturalism and thus create a 1.5 generation.7 The historical context of Korean immigration and community development appears to previde an answer. Sociohistorical Context The history of Korean immigration to America began in l902, and by 1905- a total of 7.226 Korean immigrants (6,048 men, 637 women, 54l children) had reached Hawaiian shores by sixty'five different ships. However, a similarly large influx of Korean immigrants was not to occur again until the late 19605. The 1980 census enumerated 354,529 Koreans in the United States, about two—thirds of whom were “new immigrants” who had come to the US. since 1970. Since the bulk of ethnic Koreans are so new to this country, that community’s history is the shortest of any other Asian immigrant group, except that of recently arrived lndochinese refugees. Due to their longer history in this country, the Chinese and Japanese communities have experienced “centrifugal development”: that is, many of the second generation and their descendants have left the enclaves of Chinatown or immigrant Little Tokyo to form instead “psychological” ethnic communities in the suburbs, whose leadership is already in the hands of the third generation. To be sure, Chinatown and Little Tokyo still exist as reception areas for new immigrants, but many recent immigrants from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and ]apan have bypassed these erstwhile centers to settle in the suburbs. On the other hand, the Korean ethnic community remains largely based in regional immigrant enclaves, or Photo by Howard Kim Koreatowns, in major ' - fl metropolitan areas. These areas. which are Still in Koreans are one of tire most highly educated groups in the history of their formative stages. are reception areas for most new immigrants as well as centers of ethnic busi- nesses and socxocul-tural American immigration- acttvtties. Interestingly however, a significant proportion of recent Korean immigrants '(some 30 to 40% in the Los Angeles area, for example) has already moved into the suburbs, while some new immigrants have started to settle down in the suburbs directly without passing through the conventional reception area of Koreatown.- Another interesting development is that many elderly Korean immigrants in the suburbs have moved back to Koreatown and its environs for independence. convenience, and sociability. Maintaining Social Netwodks These patterns of residence suggest that, despite some scattering to the suburbs, the Korean ethnic community is Ki‘F.l-.A\ (It LTL‘RF. ' SI‘RINU IVVC 25 ll?! KOREAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE THE "1.5 GENERAHON' more “centripetal” than “centrifugal.” One obvious reason for this centripetal movement is a continued need to maintain the social network between the elderly, who have gravitated back to the core ethnic area, and their adult children, who remain behind in the suburbs. The other reason—less obvious, but considerably more important—is that first generation Koreans have had easy access to suburban areas, access that traditionally has been possible only for the American—bom children and grandchildren of Chinese and Japanese immigrants. Such well acculturated Asian Americans were able to expand their psychological ethnic community so that they had no need for social support from the ethnic communities in Chinatown or Little Tokyo. However, for the majority of first generation Korean immigrants, Koreatown is not merely a place of ethnic business and entertainment. It is also their sociocultural microcosm, where they receive social support, recognition, and a raison d'etre. Unlike their Chinese and Japanese counterparts, the leader- ship of the Korean ethnic community is still mainly in the hands of first generation immigrants. ‘lts a foreign-ham Korean, who is nevertheless bilingual and biwl’anl, what chances do I have in the United States to be either a Korean or an Hence, despite suburban residence, first generation Koreans continue to find their sense of ethnic comr munity within Koreatown. Our recent study in Los Angeles indicates that the attachment of first genera— American,” tion Koreans to ethnic ' culture and society is unaffected by their length of residence in the United States or their rates of acculturation.S We called this type of adaptation an “adhesive mode": that is, certain aspects of the new culture and social relations with members of the host society are appended to the immigrants’ traditional culture and social networks, without significantly replacing or modifying them. In such a milieu, the adolescent Korean immigrants’ ability to attain functional bilingualism and biculturalism may be considered a rather “natural” byproduct, even if it is often accompanied by some sociocultural ambivalence. Here we find an important clue to the emergence of the 1.5 generation. What this phenomenon would mean to an 26 KOREAN CULTURE - SPRINU 10°C indivrdual immigrants psychosocial adaptation and his devel— opment of a sense of community should now be explored. Adapting to American Life: Other social variables heed to be examined in order to understand how the 1.5 generation, in common with many noanaucasian immigrant groups, has adapted to American life and soc:ety. Many of the independent factors that affect this generation have already been discussed, such as adolescent immigration, bilingualism, biculturalism, the high socioeconomic status of the parents, a centripetal ethnic community, and an “adhesive mode" of adaptation. But these factors operate within a wider American social ¢ontext, where there is limited social acceptance of nonrwhite minorities by the dominant group (WASP—White Anglo—Saxon Protestants). Since there is abundant historical and empirical evidence for white racism and its praxis,9 we will focus our attention specifically on praxis relevant to Asian Americans in general and Korean Americans in particular. Although the Asian population in the United States has increased considerably during the past decade (from 1.5 million in 1970 to 3.5 million in 1980), it still constitutes only 1.5% of the total US. population. Despite coming to what they perceived to be a “free” and “democratic” nation of immigrants, the Chinese were in 1882 the first ethnic group to be singled out for exclusion from immigration to the United States. In 1942, Japanese’Americans were the first American citizens :0 be incarcerated en masse in concentration camps (euphemistically called “relocation centers”) simply because of ancestry. Asian Americans have thus been a target or' severe prejudice and discrimina- tion in the past. Ironically, many past discriminatory practices were legitimated by the US. Congress and government, creating a form of institutional racism. Anti— Asian legislation was, however, largely a product of the negative stereotypes about Asians held by the majority of Americans. American perceptions of distinct Asian commu' nities mainly derived from earlier images of Chinese and Japanese, which were later applied to other Asian groups. Even by 1979. almost 90% of my 130 American students did not have any knowledge about Koreans, nor could they differentiate Koreans from Japanese or Chinese.1C Changing Image The image of "Orientals" has fluctuated over time. reflecting changes in international relations and in the 937' Pliolo by Bill Avon {WWW M v» - socioeconomic and political conditions of the United States. The change from a negative to positive image in the 19605 the professionalization and upward social mobility of young may largely be attributed to Chinese and Japanese Americans who were generally American'horn and college educatedfl Moreover. the influx of college-educated immigrants from Korea, the Philippines, and Hong Kong since US: immigration law was revised in l965 reinforced this positive attitude toward Asian Americans. Thus. in the period of a hundred years. the “unassimilahle Orientals" were transformed into ‘successt'ul model minorities"! ls this image of ASian Americans valid, and, if so. what are its implica- tions? These questions are particularly relevant to . the social opportunities and personal identities of Korean-American children attend public schunLt in the mulzi’ethnic Los Angeles Unified School District, which includes Lox Angeles's Ktireatuun. the 1.5 generation of Koreans. A memher of the 1.5 generation might ask: “As a foreign-horn Korean, who is nevertheless bilingual and hicultural. what chances do 1 have in the United States to he either a Korean or an American? How do I !{l ~‘l'."» -‘. 27 it '[1llll.llil l-.lll\ .i\).lli \\”i:li \\l‘iltl1 I. l . ..vl. .t compare to my peers in social group and .-\iiiei‘i\.in-ln ls--i..iiis group should l most closely Ivlc'Hlll‘i Superior Education Most past studies on Asian American "success" focused on the socioeconomic status that Asian Americans achieved in comparison with that of the dominant group (particularly white males). According to such standards as education. occupation. and earnings. Asian Americans are generally considered successful. ' japanese Americans since the 1940s. for example. have achieved a level of education similar to that of whites. As of 196C. hoth native» and foreign—horn Chinese Americans achieved a level of education equal. or even superior. to that of whites. According to the 1980 census data. both native, and foreign—horn filipinos. as well as immigrants from Korea and lndia. are also well educated. This superior education has given a large proportion of young Japanese and Chinese Americans in the Post-War period an entree into technical and professional occupations. Today Koreans and other Asian immigrants tend to show similar results: the 1980 census reveals that the occupational prestige of many Asian male groups averages higher than that of white 28 KOREAN CULTth ' FE‘RINU lusl.‘ Phnln n, Howard Klm ‘i 'DGENERATION” males. The large proportion of Asian Americans in white Llillzir occupations and their high rate of participation in the lahor force resulted in a relatively high family income. a tact also confirmed in the NSC census. ' I Lower Earning Power The ahovc data seem to confirm the successful image most Americans have of Asian Americans. In fact. however. except for Japanese. the earning power of foreign‘horn Asian males ranges from only 6 ‘31: to 89% that of whites. Moreover. the earning power of foreign- horn males. including the [.3 generation. is not generally hetter than that of Hispanics and Blacks. The surprisingly high incomes of foreign—horn Japanese males may indicate that they are more involved with the export—oriented Japanese economy than with the US. economy.“ The earning power of native-horn Japanese. Chinese. and Filipino males is higher than that of foreignvhorn males in tllieir own ethnic group; even they, however. still earn proportionally less than white males. Female workers. regardless of their race or ethnic status. consistently earn less than their respective male counterparts. These findings are hardly surprising given the reality of AsiawAmericans' exp-.lgrience in the lahor market. The most serious occupational prol‘lems for hoth native— and has overqualiiicaiion for their iohs or underutili:ation of their foreign—horn Asian Americans heen either education. Highly qualii'ied Japanese niseis and sanseis. for example. remain underrepresented in some occupations. such as upper—level iilanagement. communications. construction. and entertainment. ‘ In general. it is fair to say that Asian Americans are excluded from positions of power and influence. One researcher has noted that Asian employees in local and state government agencies are concentrated in low to ‘middle levels of employment.“ In the federal govemmenta the picture is not much different: Asian employees there are generally excluded from administrative P()llC\'rlI'l'c:’ll\'ln)" positions. A Temporary Phenomenon? Some have argued that the disadvantaged status of Asian Americans is just. a temporary phenomenon. which has been experienced ‘hefore by other new immigrant groups. Whether this interpretation is true or not. it is evident that native-horn Asian Americans. as well as the 1.5 generation of Korean Americans. are not inferior to 94/ their white counterparts in language. education. and motivation. Hence. there is no reason to expect that Asian Americans should earn less than the majority of Americans even during such a transitional phase. if the American lahor market were free from discriminatory structures. The fact that there is such an earnings' disparity suggests that the successful image of Asian Americans remains more myth than reality. Vulnerability of the 1.5 Generation This myth. howeyer. has both practical and theoretical implications. to which the 1.5 generation of Korean Americans are particularly yulnerahle. The practical effects include the official neglect of the real problems and needs of Asian Americans; the legitimation of institutional racism; and reinforcement of the dominant group's resentment toward Asian Americans. The Asian American "success' stereotype has also theoretical implications. Perhaps the most important is that the recent change to a positiye imaee of Asian Americans among the majority population does not necessarily mean increased social acceptance Studies haye heen done on the social distance the dominant Caucasian con‘i— (indiuition ceremony for K.ircaii-Aiiiericmi children at the (Ih'imduc Kim‘un School. munity feels from some thirty distinct ethnic United States. The results show that no Asian group has c\'c reached eyen the middle ranks held hy Czechs. Poles. l Greeks.” Koreans in particular haye ranked especially low Z7th in 1946. 30th in 1956. 27th in 1966. and 30th again i 1977. A recent study has shown that black Americans als groups in the feel a great social distance from Koreans.“ ln shor however "model" or "successful" they may he. Asia Americans in general. and Korean Americans i particular. are socially segregated from hoth white an black Americans. Limited Social Assimilation ln this sense. \yhile members of the 1.5 generation me attain a high degree of cultural assimilation. they \yi experience limited social assimilation. This result is dt not to their actual economic status hut their iisc‘fll‘c‘d raci and ethnic l‘;|L‘l\'*_‘l‘Ulill\l. For example. Korean l‘ll\'~lt‘l.ln>i 99a Korean-American children in from of Wilshire State Bank. one via down Korean or Korean—American owned and operated banks in Lus Angelcs'. the 1.5 generation may hecome highly acculturated into the American way of life hy virtue of their good command of English. high professional credentials. or even their conversion to a Protestant church. But even so. they may find it difficult to enter the mainstream of the American medical system because of their ascrihed racial status. They might therefore he compelled‘to practice in less competitive communities. such as rural areas or their own ethnic enclaves. This situation is analogous to that of women, who are so heavily concentrated in such 30 KURI..-\\' (fl LTL'lH‘ 0 ~|‘|{|\\i I‘I-I.‘ 1‘\'\'lll‘.lll\ln\ il‘ HUT-5C3. \L‘C' retaries. and elementary school teachers. This phenomenon is called “ascriptive contain— ment": that is. women and minorities .ire contained in secondary or periphery lahor markets hecause of their sex, race. and national origins. not hecause of their individual ahilities. Such ascrihed containment of the |.3 gen— eration can take many forms. such as forcing Korean professionals to participate primarily in ethnic husinesses. ethnic clinics. ethnic law offices. ethnic churches. and ethnic sporting and artistic events. and accept leadership positions only Within the ethnic community. Admittedly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such activities. as long as the individual prefers them and is aware of a possihle “mohility trap.""' Often however, the ethnic island provides a false sense of success and security. it I can function as a pacifier, transforming the painful sense of relative deprivation into a pleasant sense of relative F'llnln In Rut Anni satisfaction. Thanks to their functional hilingualism and hiculturalisni, the members of the l5 generation may he more suhject to such .i falsL sense of security than their offspring. who will generally he monolingual and monocultural. Two Personality Types The aforenicntioiwd structural marginality influences the personality of the il.3 generation to produce two possihle modes of adaptation. These we may descrihe as the cosmopolitan and the marginal personalities. The cosmopolitan personalit'l type emerges from the positive 99’? resolution of biculturalism and displays creativity. motivation, leadership potential. active partiCipation in both the ethnic and mainstream communities. and a strong sense of Korean American ethnic identity. The marginal personality type is a product of the negative resolution of this tension and exhibits ambivalence about personal identity. inferiority complexes, hypersensitivity. social isolation, and feelings of powerlessness. Given the two alternative modes of adaptation described above. what other factors affect which personality type an individual becomes? Subiective Factors Social conditions do not always affect individuals in a uniform way. How the individual subjectively perceives the reality is often more important than objective reality. As the sociologist William Issac Thomas once said. "When one defines the situation as real, it is real in consequences.“ Similarly, such factors as age, language, and culture do not automatically determine the personality type of members of the 1.5 generation. Much seems to depend on the individual’s interpretation of the situation and his or her capacity to adapt. Although a rigorous empirical study on the relationship between acculturation and psychosocial adjustment remains to be done. the following psychological factors seem to be closely related to the development of a cosmopolitan personality in the 1.5 generation immigrant. first. the immigrant has a realistic perception of ethnic marginality in US: i.e.. that there are limited opportunities for assimilation into the soc1al structure in this country regardless of acculturation. birthplace. and achievement. Second. there is a positive outlook toward bilingualism and biculturalism. Third. he or she strives constantly to create a new ethnic consciousness that recogni:es Korean-American pluralism. Fourth. the immigrant is motivated to overcome ethnic marginality. by championing cosmopolitan leadership of both the Korean and American communities. And finally. he or she has a broad knowledge of. and involvement in. minority issues in the United States. if not the world. _. ABOUT THE AUTHOR WON MOO HURH is Professor of Socxolog-y at Western Illinois Unitersrt}. He received a BA. in economics from Monmouth College in Illinois and his PhD. degree in sociology and ethnology from the University of Heidelberg in Germany. His spet'ialr'mtions include race and ethnic relations. social psychology. and the sociology of knowledge. His recent publications include Korean Immigrants in America: A Structural Analysis of Ethnic Confinement and Adhesive Adaptation and numerous articles in social science journals. l. Scok Chrmnu Song. “Bilingualism rind Immigrant Children." in Ktrh’flm in Amenca. H. Sunni. ed. (Memphis: Association of Kore-an Christian Scholars. Inc.. I977). r. 135 l. Sonu. "Bilingualism and Immigrant Children." ibid.. p [36. 3. The following l'iuutes tire taken from lh\‘ L'.S. Department of Itis‘tice's I974 Annual Repurt' lmmtgrurttin and .N'aturaltwtiim Service (Washington. DC: Unvemiiieni PnnflnL' Office. 1974) and Statistical Yearhimk (if the Immigratinn and Naturalimitiin Sen-tet- (L15 Gowrnnirnt Printing: \‘m'ice. 1950-1984) 4. (If. L. Strclmiin .ind l..-\. Mt-reev. “L'ntuuntlinu the (:Un'luk‘nCC Model." Amt'rii'mi Kn'ttilitflt‘ul Review 45 ( W-‘Cl' 571583. 3. Cf. Illmu Ktm. New Lrhu'i Immigruntx: The K'l'k'd“ Community iii New link (Princeton Princeton L'nivt-Mn Pro». I95] I: E. Phillips. EH. Yii and E5. Yang. eds. Kim in Lin Ant-elm (Lm Angeli-s: (:JIHKWI'HJ Sute L'nnetsiu. I952). \X'un Mun Hurh iiiil Knutnu (Ihiin: Kiiii. Kurt-nit lmmtgmnu in Jvirit'riai A Structural Aniiixm in Eihiii. .Hh CIVTI]!V|.'TV|"T|K and Adheiiie Adaptation (Ctanburv. N _|.: Entitich DICkinxfn Universitv Press. 1984). 6. Department iifjustiee [074 Annual Repmt and Statuiical Yt'r‘uilt (NHL up cit. 7. Hurh .ind Kim. K-rrcur. Imrntzrtmu in America. op en. 5. Hurh and Kim. Knivean Immigrants in America. ibid. ‘9 PM "thrash" ] me.in not -inl\ uh.” pcnplt- do. but .ilm wh.ii iht-\ think and fuel Al‘qu tlnin: IL Rncml [‘Ll\l~ Ihl.‘ Ihcludt'~ knowledge. ideolo-J. attitude. .intl tictzuns ll‘i." etuiiu. r.itiunali:t-. mdlnlilln. and promote r.I\'=~n‘1. 1C \X'nn .\lm- Hiirh. “Tinnisz .i KurCLIn-AmleCJh Ethnieiii Simc ThL‘i‘fL‘lICJI Mode-L." Ethnic and RJt‘lJl Studio §(19.\“’457. ll SM. L\m.in. ifhlnc.\\ -\mc1i;tm.\ (\k‘“ Yiir}; Rand-int Huux‘. Hum. 11° ll. Hurh.in.l KII11,KIIY\'.II\ lVTIYnIfthh"IAIMCHJIIM‘I‘ tit l ; lliirh .inJ Kim. Kurt's" liiiini-erits tii .-\t'l\'!'l.'il. Il‘ttl l4 \ New .intl l Sith-rs. "Tlit- Ruatl i-- l‘.ir=t\- Hut-riman ~n u! iht .‘iu'I-u' 'IIIH :\tit.in.t-iiieni -\l " lirimr. .iii.l K.i.i..r SlllJln \ t I‘I‘VI TV”; -\~i in -'\i-irti\‘.iii ll l‘x.irrir.-_-\~r. Kl .il. “E\l||\ UI-‘H. k\‘tiir\iti.in.il Fit-stiet- .iii.l Income «9 .-\~i.in Ameriwmf' pain-i retiJ .it the .-\nnu.il Meeting. -\merie.in xx‘i-il-wt‘nI Avuemtion. New York. Srptemlx-r 2. WV. 15. E. Wudrum. ‘.-\n ,-\~~e~~ment nt'J.ip.inese American .‘\~~lmllil[1i\n. Pluralism. and Suburdinatiun." American Immui u] Nat-lug $7 \l".‘l I: 137469. in. A Y (false ,‘\\l.|n .in‘I F3|\:III\ Amt-titans.” in (Sui; nghts Issues and Astur- {I'lu nan/i; Amrricum {\X'.i~hini_-tnn. l‘.(:.. LXS. (Lu'emmcnt Printing t‘fliet. 1°79), pr‘. 434-443. IT. \\nn .‘ilui Hurh.(' rrnrcrutit't- Stujx ut Korean Immigrants . 'l\i~.itlv.int:i:ul Emplovinunt Status of in th. l \ iiin Franc-mu R and F. Rest-arch Associates. 1077‘. E ‘ R.~.-.ir.lii~ "k..irnr;ir.iti\-.- Kleiul Distant-i- in Ethii-ru. Suiitli Atrit I. “le the L'..\'..” \nt'i-ilugj. itii.t' \'m'tiil Research 5; ll"h>‘ i404 sex l‘. R T <.'h.i\-t\t. "-uiul l‘-t~t.tn.t- ul RIJCL College .‘IUJA’HI~ it ,. f‘xxi. HHI‘IHI:\ \X'hiit Ltiivt-tsin." Xm'iuliigx !d\:\ :L‘ 's: 'T-iu.tt.l~ tKi‘rk'.ln'.'\IIl\’f|L In '\1--\l\l~.“ ‘ Jal ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/28/2009 for the course APA 200 taught by Professor Musikawong during the Spring '07 term at ASU.

Page1 / 11

1.5gen - c ' 3 < i >. a 2 a 5 L A Paragon of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online